[llvm-dev] Proposal: introduce dependency on abseil when building benchmarks
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Oct 7 09:31:40 PDT 2021
There's probably no better mailing list, etc. It's an unfortunate situation
that active developers don't/can't keep up with llvm-dev (it's a lot, even
without commits lists, etc) such that it generally isn't sufficient to
email a non-targeted email to llvm-dev and expect to find the interested
parties in some particular subsystem/feature area/etc. Generally if you
don't already know at least a representative subset of interested parties
you may need to go looking for them similar to finding appropriate code
reviewers - check commit histories in the code in question, commit
histories in buildbot configurations that might be using this feature (in
this case), and maybe then buildbot owners that enable the configuration.
If you can find at least a couple of interested parties in such a search
and nothing else turns up that may be adequate to provide a variety of
perspectives/sufficient consensus to make a decision and/or they might be
able to point to others they know of who are working in that area.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:20 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:12 AM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 17:01, Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com> wrote:
>>> Unless people that actually build and run benchmarks have agreed with
>>>> your proposal, you should not merge a clear breaking change.
>>> One of the goals of this thread was identifying who those folks may be.
>> And yet, you propose to follow through if no one objected. Which is never
>> a good idea for breaking changes.
> To be clear, the fact they are breaking changes is what we're trying to
> determine. It was my intention to spur attention to the thread (given the
> silence), and providing a timeline can help.
> It's really easy to miss an email like this and it's just out of luck that
>>>> I didn't.
>>> Is there a more appropriate channel of communication where owners could
>>> be identified?
>> No, this is the right place.
>> But you either wait for people to find this thread (however long it
>> takes), or you actively search for them (as I outlined before) and include
>> them in the conversation, for example, CC'ing them in the thread.
> Yup, but they need to be identified first (i.e. a bit of a catch 22 if no
> one replies)
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev